I'm sorry, but you're just wrong in this. Motion controls are a gameplay design choice; like all design choices it won't deliver universally positive results for all games.

Better graphics are not a design choice. Photorealism is, but that's not what "better graphics" means. Visual fidelity and verisimilitude are not the same thing, even though most people conflate them. The claim is not that highly-detailed realistic worlds will improve all games. The claim is that better fidelity to the original designs--created at a "resolution" far higher than any consoles allow--improves all games.

Member

I don't feel like posting a totally uninteresting post about who the hell cares next gen interpretations to follow thread suit so excuse me for talking about something entirely different like SRTZ PS2 sales.

SRTZ PS2 sales look quite bad to me, I know its special disc, banpresto endless milking and such, but still low sales. Also, going from the year start, if you have a PS2 game coming up, it certainly looks better if it has a PSP port to go with. Except Amagami I guess, because enterbrain knows its fanbase well enough and the game looks great (for what it is yeah).

I didnt mean to say that the HD consoles are the only consoles that can have graphics that adds atomsphere to the game. It if looked like i was saying that, then i am sorry :\ What i ment to say is that graphics can change how a game feels, not just how a game looks, at least in my opinion.

The more advance graphics you can make, i think that there might be a better chance to make a "better" atmosphere in a game. This does not goes for every single game just to underline that. For example, the Alone in the Dark screenshot that you posted, even if those graphics are outdated today, i still think that this game has its own atmosphere to it. And for example Super Mario Galaxy for the Wii also has a good atmosphere to the game, at least in my opinion

I used "better" since i dont think that you necessarily need more advanced graphics to make a great atmosphere in a game, but i am not really sure how to explain what i mean too well, sorry, but do you understand what i mean?

A game like for example Killzone 2, i dont think it would be possible to make such an atmosphere on any other consoles than the HD consoles. Therefor i think that the graphics can have some meaning to how the game feels, which might translate into that the game might be more enjoyable.

And just to underline, i dont mean that more advanced graphics necessarily makes a game more enjoyable. In many cases i personally prefer old sprite based 2d games over many of the 3d games for example (I wish that they would make more sprite based 2d games by the way :\). I just wanted to say that graphics in general might change how the game feels and this might translate into that the game becomes more enjoyable, at least in my opinion

Banned

I don't feel like posting a totally uninteresting post about who the hell cares next gen interpretations to follow thread suit so excuse me for talking about something entirely different like SRTZ PS2 sales.

SRTZ PS2 sales look quite bad to me, I know its special disc, banpresto endless milking and such, but still low sales. Also, going from the year start, if you have a PS2 game coming up, it certainly looks better if it has a PSP port to go with. Except Amagami I guess, because enterbrain knows its fanbase well enough and the game looks great (for what it is yeah).

Member

I don't feel like posting a totally uninteresting post about who the hell cares next gen interpretations to follow thread suit so excuse me for talking about something entirely different like SRTZ PS2 sales.

SRTZ PS2 sales look quite bad to me, I know its special disc, banpresto endless milking and such, but still low sales. Also, going from the year start, if you have a PS2 game coming up, it certainly looks better if it has a PSP port to go with. Except Amagami I guess, because enterbrain knows its fanbase well enough and the game looks great (for what it is yeah).

The SRWZ special disc doesn't have a whole lot of actual game on it, so I'm guessing a lot of people saw through their ruse and decided against picking it up. Hell, I'm waiting to pick it up for $20 before I even consider it.

Member

The SRWZ special disc doesn't have a whole lot of actual game on it, so I'm guessing a lot of people saw through their ruse and decided against picking it up. Hell, I'm waiting to pick it up for $20 before I even consider it.

I suppose it is way lower effort than OG Gaiden, then again its also budget priced (doesn't have the main game unlike OG Gaiden iirc), anyway I decided against comparing them since OG Gaiden blows it out the water sales-wise. Wikipedia mentions Neo Super Robot Wars Special Disc (PSX, 1997), but that one also did way better.

I wasn't comparing in terms of generation comparisons but how far graphics difference can be to still be considered minuscule.

test_account said:

I didnt mean to say that the HD consoles are the only consoles that can have graphics that adds atomsphere to the game. It if looked like i was saying that, then i am sorry :\ What i ment to say is that graphics can change how a game feels, not just how a game looks, at least in my opinion.

The more advance graphics you can make, i think that there might be a better chance to make a "better" atmosphere in a game. This does not goes for every single game just to underline that. For example, the Alone in the Dark screenshot that you posted, even if those graphics are outdated today, i still think that this game has its own atmosphere to it. And for example Super Mario Galaxy for the Wii also has a good atmosphere to the game, at least in my opinion

I used "better" since i dont think that you necessarily need more advanced graphics to make a great atmosphere in a game, but i am not really sure how to explain what i mean too well, sorry, but do you understand what i mean?

A game like for example Killzone 2, i dont think it would be possible to make such an atmosphere on any other consoles than the HD consoles. Therefor i think that the graphics can have some meaning to how the game feels, which might translate into that the game might be more enjoyable.

And just to underline, i dont mean that more advanced graphics necessarily makes a game more enjoyable. In many cases i personally prefer old sprite based 2d games over many of the 3d games for example (I wish that they would make more sprite based 2d games by the way :\). I just wanted to say that graphics in general might change how the game feels and this might translate into that the game becomes more enjoyable, at least in my opinion

listen to the mad man

I'm sorry, but you're just wrong in this. Motion controls are a gameplay design choice; like all design choices it won't deliver universally positive results for all games.

Better graphics are not a design choice. Photorealism is, but that's not what "better graphics" means. Visual fidelity and verisimilitude are not the same thing, even though most people conflate them. The claim is not that highly-detailed realistic worlds will improve all games. The claim is that better fidelity to the original designs--created at a "resolution" far higher than any consoles allow--improves all games.

The thing is that a certain amount of horsepower translates to a certain amount of visual fidelity, and in the case of many games out there, the additional horsepower offered by the PS3/360 has not translated to additional visual fidelity. That's why I posted a screenshot of Disgaea 3--nothing about the game requires the higher visual fidelity offered by the PS3 or really enhances it.

I don't mean to pick on Disgaea, either; another example in the RPG genre would be the Far East of Eden remake on 360, or Operation Darkness on 360, or Record of Agarest War PS3/360--again, that's 5 examples just in current gen RPGs.

So, again, while it's true that motion controls require that a game is designed around them to benefit (well, substantially--any design can benefit from IR menus or something basic like that, obviously), it's also true that translating additional horsepower into better visual fidelity requires an effort on the part of the developer.

The point of the initial argument was that donny was trying to say that both graphics and motion offered something equal to each other (a zero-sum tradeoff). I disagree with that. But duckroll asking rhetorically whether RPGs could have "next-gen controls"? Of course they can. Or they can have tacked on waggle. Or they could be photorealistic. Or they could have a very abstract visual style but take advantage of extra horsepower on PS360. Or they could be on PS360 but be shitty PS2-level visuals.

It comes down to what developers choose to do with the systems. There have been plenty of lazy motion controls. There have also been some promising motion controls. There have been plenty of jaw-dropping only-on-next-gen experiences. There have also been PS2.5 games out there.

So while I think that donny's equivalency between the two is false--there's no reason Nintendo couldn't have put more horsepower under the hood and prevented the need for this stupid dilemma, But I think that if we need to engage this dilemma it's not fair to resolve it by dismissing the potential of motion controls, tapped or untapped.

Member

While I'm still sore from these recent Wii announcements, good job for Capcom. Resi5 did great for both systems considering what you'd usually expect. I imagine a decent bit of hardware has been moved as well. Capcom did good for gaming.

Having played rather a lot of several Disgaea games, I have to disagree. It certainly doesn't require the higher fidelity, but it is enhanced by it. In the PS3 version it's possible for them to put more information directly onscreen while still maintaining legibility; in a numbers-fest like Disgaea, that's a true boon to the smoothness of gameplay. The sharper backgrounds are nicer too.

And the point of disagreement isn't whether games take advantage of the horsepower, just that it's always a potential win. Disgaea on PS3 could look significantly better than on PS2 (and consequently be a better work of art) if NIS were willing/able to pay to replace their old sprite sets. As an economic reality, they can't/won't. But better graphics fidelity is a potential win in every case; motion control is a potential win in only some cases. It may be a quibble within your larger point--with which I agree--about how devs are the ones who determine what potential is met. But as an avid gamer I want to make sure a couple basic facts never get lost in the shuffle:

Member

Having played rather a lot of several Disgaea games, I have to disagree. It certainly doesn't require the higher fidelity, but it is enhanced by it. In the PS3 version it's possible for them to put more information directly onscreen while still maintaining legibility; in a numbers-fest like Disgaea, that's a true boon to the smoothness of gameplay. The sharper backgrounds are nicer too.

And the point of disagreement isn't whether games take advantage of the horsepower, just that it's always a potential win. Disgaea on PS3 could look significantly better than on PS2 (and consequently be a better work of art) if NIS were willing/able to pay to replace their old sprite sets. As an economic reality, they can't/won't. But better graphics fidelity is a potential win in every case; motion control is a potential win in only some cases. It may be a quibble within your larger point--with which I agree--about how devs are the ones who determine what potential is met. But as an avid gamer I want to make sure a couple basic facts never get lost in the shuffle:

Is that really true though? Does increased graphics really benefit every game when the resources spent on bettering the graphics could have also been spent on bettering the gameplay? Developers of games with big budgets can focus on both aspects. Developers with limited budgets have to make trade offs. I wonder if the smal improvement in graphics for some of these games are actually beneficial to the overall qualty of the title.

The point I was trying to make above is that more powerful hardware makes good graphics easier than worse graphics on weak hardware. So they actually have at least as much time to spend on gameplay if they are content with a modest increase in fidelity. This is especially important for small developers.

The only problem with this view is that some console gamers currently have the very unrealistic and counter-productive expectation that all games should make "full" use of their platform. But this will certainly cease with the next generation at the latest (even though it's already clearly not happening this generation).

I think that this has almost always been the case. Once you have 700 megabytes of CD, you're expected to fill it. Once you have 8.5 GB of DVD you're expected to fill it. If it's in HD then all of those textures had better be of significant resolution that you can never see the pixels.

Just to clear this up, I was responding to this post which indicated that PS360 was "next-gen" and Wii was "last-gen." I responded to that post by indicating that both the PS360 and Wii have qualities that are "last-gen" and (literally, as in they'll be a part of) "next-gen." I wasn't trying to equate the two mentioned qualities in an absolute sense, though. Just like analog sticks and 3-D didn't improve every game type, I wasn't trying to say that graphics or the Wiimote improve every game type.

In order to better illustrate how motion control applies to this, let me first mention how with motion, you are automatically given a larger amount of intuitive input methods. The same applied to shoulder buttons, face buttons, and analog when they were introduced, as they are all intuitive relative to how we are able to control our games. If we really want a gaming future where we are able to interact with everything and experience the entirety of the game world, motion controls are needed. We've run out of ways to interact. Now, it should be noted that I think the jump to motion controls has been too quick, and I see this generation as more of a 'demo' of what's to come, as the only motion-control centered console does not provide the tech to produce game worlds that can be completely manipulated.

Also, although my previous example sounds like it is solely focused on adventure/action/fully 3D games, I still believe that motion (and pointing), being more intuitive and superior than some conventional control means (such as the second set of shoulder buttons or the strange d-pad/analog stick placement we see on today's controllers), has a place in every genre. To give an example of how motion controls may be incorporated in something like an RPG, imagine a tilt-based menu system. Rather than scrolling through commands, you tilt left or right to select attack or defend, up or down to select items and magic, etc. It eliminates the need to scroll through the menu and allows a more intuitive experience. Another example is the Kingdom Hearts series. In order to change the character's action, you have to awkwardly reach out with you thumb (whether it's left or right depends on control scheme) - both of which are already used to move around and jump/slide/execute command. It presents a real problem if you're fighting a long or difficult boss or enemy and you need to quickly switch to magic or use an item. The ability to simply tilt up, down, left, or right would immediately alleviate this.

Now, some people may say " oh please i can scroll through things, I've been doing it until now just fine!", but then of course, the same idea to graphics or visuals still applies. Really, though, motion was sort a jumped-gun this generation (I also believe HD was, but to a lesser extent) and so we really can't see the entire scope of benefits just yet due to technical and cost limitations. So, as it stands, most people will still find motion or 'waggle' to be less of a driving factor than better graphics, and legitimately so.

And yet image quality is not what is being discussed, nor is it meaningfully relevant to the discussion. A game with PS2-quality graphics, plus much better IQ, still looks like a PS2 game with better IQ.

"Easier" is an extremely limited benefit here. Better hardware saves you all your effort spent squeezing things out of lower-powered hardware if you were operating at the cap previously, but saving on optimizations is not the makings of an order-of-magnitude cost reduction.

Of course that's true. But "better controls" doesn't mean "motion control". That's a game design choice, and due to the variability of design goals won't apply to every game. For example, you said:

kiruyama said:

To give an example of how motion controls may be incorporated in something like an RPG, imagine a tilt-based menu system. Rather than scrolling through commands, you tilt left or right to select attack or defend, up or down to select items and magic, etc.

But this is not a universally superior solution. Look to the PC world, where motion control in GUI interface has been standard for decades with the mouse. But I guarantee you that a competent keyboard-only operator is much faster than any pure mouser. So for a game where menu manipulation didn't pause battle, buttons would excel over motion. Even without such time strictures, the more elaborate a menu, the more you'd have to closely monitor these competing control systems.

There are definitely some situations where pointing/motion control is superior--say, selection of units in an RTS--but others where it isn't, such as activation of a life-saving spell in an RPG. Improved graphics benefit both games, however.

ksamedi said:

Is that really true though? Does increased graphics really benefit every game when the resources spent on bettering the graphics could have also been spent on bettering the gameplay?

I'm definitely not saying that improved graphics always trump any other improvements! Each particular effort must be weighed carefully by the developer. I'm sure we could easily come up with games from all the following classes:

1. Motion controls improved the game more than better graphics would've.
2. Better graphics improved the game more than motion controls would've.
3. Both motion controls and better graphics improved the game.
4. Motion controls did not improve the game in any way.

My point was that, in contrast, I don't think we can find a game which falls in this class:

well because of this weeks sales figures, we are now discussing controls and graphics.

let me put it this way, I watched my first Rambo in German with argentinian subtitles (i dont speak any of those two languages)... I loved it. That does not take anything from me enjoying 300 in awesome HD. Things change, thats life.

For those that are slow, gameplay is #1, and good graphics add a lot to good game... at the same time, nothing can save piss poor game. So anyone enjoying an PS2 or Wii game, will enjoy it more if it had awesome graphics (and physics, and AI). With so many games coming out, and so little money, graphics are easy way people differentiate between what should they buy.

Of course, these days i play browser based "RTS" game most of my free time . Its html game (not flash), and yeah I would enjoy it even more if it was "real" game but at the same time, it brought gaming to players who never played games before and it made it accessible from phones and any kind of computer you can get your hands on, so it makes sense too, and I am playing it instead of Total War. So there you go.